Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:

TedM wrote:200-300 years of ignorance or lack of interest by all of the people who read the passage

Grasping at straws again, eh?

No... I'm not being fair? Either way, though, a conversation is boring which just weaves its way back to some "reason" for dismissing the answer provided by the evidence.

So. I'll ask again. How much evidence do we actually have? Just a few passages by Josephus or a lot more? And what do we really know about Romes attitude toward Aretas specifically? Are these enough to justify any concrete conclusions about the likelihood of who was in charge of a particular city during an era marked by great turmoil?

So. I'll ask again.

How about this. Go find out. Make a conclusion, if you haven't already. It's not my job to convince you.

How does one φρουρεω a whole city, "the city of the Damascenes" (την Δαμακηνων πολιν), Bernard?

I answer that already to Stephan. See here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131&start=160#p1554

Uh-huh. So your attack on it here is based on better knowledge of the Greek than those who translated it against your desires?

Many translations "interpret" and add words which are not there in the original text.
I checked the words of Hebrew which got translated by φρουρεω in the LXX for 2 Samuel 8:6.
There are two:
The first one is שׂוּם which means to put, place, set, appoint, make.
The second one is נְצִיב, which can mean garrison, but also officers (2 ch 8:10), (one) officer (1 Ki 4:19) and even (one) pillar (Gen 19:26).
One definition for φρουρεω is to guard, implying the use of guards (at the city gates).

Cordially, Bernard

Peter Kirby wrote:

So. I'll ask again.

How about this. Go find out. Make a conclusion, if you haven't already. It's not my job to convince you.

Fair enough. I wasn't asking you to convince me though. My impression from what has been presented so far, is that there is not much support for any of the conclusions being drawn on this subject, which is why I asked. It appears to be a couple of brief references by Josephus. That isn't much to go on..IF my impression is correct then I don't understand the degree to which people here seem so sure of themselves on the matter. IF it is not correct, then it might make more sense to me.

arnoldo wrote:

spin wrote:

arnoldo wrote:This spread was faciliated by a pre-existing “King's Highway” which linked Damascus to Arabia. What impact were you refering to Aretas' "unsanctioned war against Herod Antipas" ?

The one involving a foreign power attacking a Roman client. Rome had a long history of dealing with foreign interference. With few exceptions the result was dire for the foreign power. The death of Tiberius meant a transition of power that was one of those junctures when strife can arise, so Vitellius going back to the seat of his regional power was necessary. The fall from grace by Herod Antipas would have made Rome less inclined to pursue Aretas, but the theory that they might sanction Aretas in Damascus is a joke. Damascus was not a part of Herod's territory and Aretas expanding his sphere of influence there would have been tantamount to suicide.

Both ancient and modern rulers have a tendency to take action "tantamount to suicide." From the Jews revolting against Roman rule to Saddam Hussein trying to expand his sphere of influence into Kuwait not so long ago. Why should Aretas be any different?

Well, let's see... hmm, I guess he was neither a religio-political movement of the masses that blindly rose up against Roman oppression and gain liberation nor was he misinformed by April Glaspie. You need to work on your analogical skills.

arnoldo wrote:Also, add the indifference that Vitellius had towards Herod Antipas and perhaps his superiors into the mix and Aretas not surprisingly takes full advantage of the complicated political situation.

No content here.

arnoldo wrote:Additionally, Caligula may've had his reasons for turing a blind eye towards Aretas' misadventures considering how the Nabataeans helped his father, Germanicus.

This conjecture has already been talked about here. It the principle of making soup by waving a few bones over some cold water.

arnoldo wrote:The following article available to read in full at JSTOR for free may be useful for anyone seeking to understand the politics involving Aretas, Antipas and Vitellius.

An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul's Flight from "The Ethnarch of King Aretas" (2 Corinthians 11:32-33) Douglas A. Campbell Journal of Biblical LiteratureVol. 121, No. 2 (Summer, 2002)

Perhaps you could have saved the effort wasted with the musings above and just quoted some of the argumentation from the article... or are you saying that the article really presented such ramblings?

re that coin claimed to be 37AD, based on Pompei date: 37AD is exactly 100 years after 63BC. Could this explain a mistaken interpretation by those that say a coin was found that dates to 37AD? Or just coincidence? If there is actually a 101 date, then again we have another possible coincidence since that in Pompei calendar is 37AD..the wiki doensn't say that it says Aretas IV, just that it has the image of Aretas. Agree with Peter that sounds unlikely to be that of Aretas IV.

Bernard Muller wrote:

How does one φρουρεω a whole city, "the city of the Damascenes" (την Δαμακηνων πολιν), Bernard?

I answer that already to Stephan. See here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131&start=160#p1554

You conjectured that soldiers didn't have "to surround the city. Just placing some hired men at each of the few city gates would do." That's not an answer. This ethnarch was in Damascus, not without. And he guarded the whole city, not just a few gates. You know what your conclusion is and you change the data to get there.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Uh-huh. So your attack on it here is based on better knowledge of the Greek than those who translated it against your desires?

Many translations "interpret" and add words which are not there in the original text.
I checked the words of Hebrew which got translated by φρουρεω in the LXX for 2 Samuel 8:6.
There are two:
The first one is שׂוּם which means to put, place, set, appoint, make.
The second one is נְצִיב, which can mean garrison, but also officers (2 ch 8:10), (one) officer (1 Ki 4:19) and even (one) pillar (Gen 19:26).
One definition for φρουρεω is to guard, implying the use of guards (at the city gates).

Rather than meander through the Hebrew, we should turn back to the word itself. In the examples I provided they were the noun φρουρα, "look-out, watch, guard, as a duty". "As a duty", ie not henchmen involved in some clandestine kidnapping.

The significance of the verb φρουρεω is limited by the object την Δαμακηνων πολιν and the fact that the locus is in Damascus. Neither is conducive to your attempt to change the story into an illegal operation by a foreign agent.

TedM wrote:re that coin claimed to be 37AD, based on Pompei date: 37AD is exactly 100 years after 63BC. Could this explain a mistaken interpretation by those that say a coin was found that dates to 37AD? Or just coincidence? If there is actually a 101 date, then again we have another possible coincidence since that in Pompei calendar is 37AD..the wiki doensn't say that it says Aretas IV, just that it has the image of Aretas. Agree with Peter that sounds unlikely to be that of Aretas IV.

Sorry, could you point me to the exact place where the claim was made? I couldn't find where the coin was first mentioned in the thread. All this to and fro without an exact reference doesn't allow independent checking.

spin wrote:

TedM wrote:re that coin claimed to be 37AD, based on Pompei date: 37AD is exactly 100 years after 63BC. Could this explain a mistaken interpretation by those that say a coin was found that dates to 37AD? Or just coincidence? If there is actually a 101 date, then again we have another possible coincidence since that in Pompei calendar is 37AD..the wiki doensn't say that it says Aretas IV, just that it has the image of Aretas. Agree with Peter that sounds unlikely to be that of Aretas IV.

Sorry, could you point me to the exact place where the claim was made? I couldn't find where the coin was first mentioned in the thread. All this to and fro without an exact reference doesn't allow independent checking.

I don't know what Peter used initially to find his reference, but I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

Peter mentions it on this page, 2nd from bottom, and gives the reference: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131&start=190

This ethnarch was in Damascus, not without. And he guarded the whole city, not just a few gates. You know what your conclusion is and you change the data to get there.

I did not say the ethnarch was without Damascus. Preventing Paul to escape Damascus only necessitated watching the city gates. The city walls were supposed to prevent people to get in or out of a city except through the city gates.
I did not change the data, but I did not add up things which are not in it.

henchmen involved in some clandestine kidnapping ... an illegal operation by a foreign agent

Why do you assume that? There was no city police in these days. Arrests could be made by people themselves, or hired men by wealthy gentry. Then the ones arrested were charged and brought to the justice system.

Cordially, Bernard